Subject: Re: [Txauth] unsolicited feedback on naming

From: "Wayne Chang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:49:31 -0400

hi, refactoring a few items as NO OBJECT for your readability, ordered by my personal preference:
TxAuth      Transmission of Authority
TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization
TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization
TIEAuth    Trust via Intent Extension Auth

the remainder can be considered OBJECT. reminder that i don't currently have significant stake in the outcome of this naming.

On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Wayne Chang wrote:
> hi all, good to meet you. adding $0.02 on naming as an outsider, using 
> good, bad, ugly descriptors:
> 
>         * AAuthZ    Alternative Authorization Protocol (AAuthZ)
> ugly, tough to pronounce and looks like a typo of AuthZ
> 
>         * AZARP    AuthoriZed Access to Resources Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * AZARAP    AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * BeBAuthZ    Back-end Based Authorization Protocol
> bad, "back-end" is way too broad
> 
>         * BYOAuthZ    Build-Your-Own Authorization Protocol
> bad, "BYO" means "bring your own" to me
> 
>         * CPAAP    Comprehensive Privileged Authentication 
> Authorization Protocol
> ugly, unclear how to pronounce, looks close to "CRAAP"
> 
>         * DAZARAP    Delegated AuthoriZation And Resource Access Protocol
> ugly, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * DIYAuthZ    Do-It-Yourself Authorization Protocol
> bad, DIY implies amateurish and backyard
> 
>         * GNAP    Grant Negotiation and Authorization Protocol
> bad, initialism doesn't imply function
> 
>         * GranPro    GRAnt Negotiation Protocol
> ugly, .+pro or has hints of proprietary
> 
>         * IDPAuthZ    Intent Driven Protocol for Authorization
> ugly, IdP already means identity provider to lots of folks
> 
>         * NIRAD    Negotiation of Intent Registration and Authority 
> Delegation
> bad, expansion is too wordy and intent registration is unclear to 
> external stakeholders
> 
>         * PAuthZ    Protocol for Authorization
> bad, initialism does not imply function
> 
>         * RefAuthZ    Refactored Authorization Protocol
> bad, "Ref" means reference to lots of folks as in you're trying to 
> define the gold standard
> 
>         * ReAuthZ    Reimagined Authorization Protocol
> ugly, implies that you might authorize _again_
> 
>         * TIAAP    Tokenized Identity and Access Protocol
> ugly, "tokenized" anything has charged meanings to technologists and 
> non-technologists alike
> 
>         * TIDEAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Extension Auth
> bad, i like "TIDEAuth" but Trust via Intent Driven Extension is just 
> semantic soup
> 
>         * TIDYAuth    Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth
> bad, tidy implies small, driven yield means nothing to me
> 
>         * TIEAuth    Trust via Intent Extension Auth
> good
> 
>         * TINOA   This Is Not OAuth
> ugly
> 
>         * TXAuth    Testable eXtensible Authorization
> good, except "Testable" doesn't sound like the main priority here?
> 
>         * TxAuth      Transmission of Authority
> good
> 
>         * TXAuth      Truly eXtensible Authorization
> good, not sure about "Truly" because we will no doubt encounter limits ourselves
> 
>         * XAuthZ    eXtensible authoriZation protocol
> bad, best expanded form here, but XAuthZ is not aesthetic to me
> 
> is there a reason we didn't call it TXAuth/TxAuth and have it stand for 
> Transaction Authorization? either of those would be my first choice. i 
> understand that the name picking period is over.
> 
> -- 
> Txauth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>